And the corp. media isn't reporting it. So far, the only story to be found is on Yahoo. Not ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or any of the major newspapers. Why? They all knew.
"Merv Griffin was gay..
Why should that be so uncomfortable to read? Why is it so difficult to write? Why are we still so jittery even about raising the issue in purportedly liberal-minded Hollywood, in 2007?
Griffin, who died of prostate cancer Sunday at 82, stayed in the closet throughout his life. Perhaps he figured it was preferable to remain the object of gossip rather than live openly as "one of them."
But how tremendously sad it is that a man of Merv's renown, of his gregarious nature and social dexterity, would feel compelled to endure such a stealthy double life even as the gay community's clout, and its levels of acceptance and equality, rose steadily from the ashes of ignorance."
Here's the Yahoo screenshot:
More below the fold...
Reuters, who initially reported the story, pulled it. In 2007, a major news organization pulled a true story about a major mogul living in the closet, something which all of Hollywood knew about, because, as they said when they added a disclaimer tag to the story:
"This was a story from The Hollywood Reporter that ran as part of a Reuters news feed. We have dropped the story from our entertainment news feed as it did not meet our standards for news. GBU Editor."
Here's the Reuters screenshot:
As you can see from the screen shots I took, yahoo is still has the page up while Reuters doesn't
"Gay reporter Rex Wockner just forwarded this story. Rex doesn't think there's every been a mainstream-media headline quite like this before. I think he's right. Why does it matter that Merv Griffin was gay? Because it matters. Meaning, if Merv could marry, and if bashing Merv weren't one of the top planks of the platform of the Republican party, then Merv being gay would be as significant as his ethnicity - an interesting side note. But being gay isn't just a side note in America today. It's still a source of great prejudice, particularly political prejudice from Republicans (or at least the far-right extremists who currently run the Republican party). So until America treats gay men and lesbians with the same respect that it accords other Americans, Merv Griffin sexual orientation will remain relevant."
"What standard for news did Richmond's piece not meet? Someone at Reuters had already given it the thumbs up, so it must have passed those heralded standards before the irate calls came. That's scandalous on its own.
You'd think the matter of an obit about or reminiscence of a public figure wouldn't generate all this brouhaha, but that's what happens when the world outside of the closet is so frightening to people in Hollywood that all sorts of insane measures are taken to reinforce the message is that there is something inherently wrong with being gay."
I just find this entire story sad, especially in 2007.
This isn't an "outing" as ALL of Hollywood knew this, all the media knew it. The fact no one could utter the words when he died is what's wrong with the picture.
The fact that the corp. media decided to leave a very important detail out about the most powerful man in Hollywood, matters.
This diary was meant to be about the media. It was not, even for me as a gay man, so much about Merv's need to "not talk about it" in public.
Merv was one of the most powerful moguls in Hollywood (and the country), best friends with Nancy Reagan, hung out (by day) with politicians who promoted anti-gay agendas and yet no major news corp. mentions who the man really was...
...because it wasn't polite in their Republican circles to talk about homosexuality. There's something wrong with that.
cross posted at my new blog: thejoshuablog